298 Million Yr Old Forest Found

Off Topic
641

From a review:

[i]John M. Cimbala (cf. IN SIX DAYS, essay 20, pp. 200 - 203), who’s characterized as a “professor of mechanical engineering, Pennsylvania State University”

“…[T]he theory of evolution has no legitimate factual evidence…”[/i]

Cool story, bro. Everyone in this thread please raise your hand if you feel that evolution has [u]NO LEGITIMATE FACTUAL EVIDENCE supporting it.[/u]

There are also references to evolution contradicting the Laws of Thermodynamics. Everyone in this thread please raise your hand if you believe evolution contradicts Thermodynamics.

Hands raised? OK, let’s move on…

The author is stated to have asked the following question: "Why do you believe in a literal six-day biblical creation as the origin of life on earth?

This is the same trap Ben Stein fell into in his movie and interviews where he obsessed over the concept of lightning striking a puddle leading to life.

Evolution [/u]IS NOT[/i] a theory about the origin of life!

So, unless you can tell me EVERY scientist prefaced their comments with exactly that before launching into their anti-evolution diatribe, then they have UNDOUBTEDLY fallen into the trap you, push, have accused so many other of – “not knowing their enemy.”

While many have degrees in the biological sciences, there is also input from an information scientist, an electrical engineer, an orthodontist, a horticultural scientist, a forestry researcher, an architectural engineer, and a few others whose credentials appear to be thrown around more as an appeal to authority than as evidence of mastery in a scientific discipline related to the subject matter in which their opinions are supposed to carry weight.

Not to mention, some review wrote that they went light on the whole science part… but, that’s not entirely surprising when they say evolution has no factual basis.

642

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ranengin wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ranegin, Christine, Ano, Beefeater, et al, are you more of a “smartie” than these fellers ^ or do you just don your cheerleading skirt and pom poms and claim that your smarties are smarter than these smarties?

Do we make our decisions about how and what to think based on “polls?”[/quote]
Push,

I don’t think either you or I have the educational background needed to properly evaluate the research conducted by any scientists specializing in physics, astronomy, geology, etc…

I don’t have a problem with the age of the universe being older, younger or exactly 5,700 years old.

You seem to be working from a predefined conclusion and filter out ANY evidence to the contrary.

What makes you so cocksure you’re right about your conclusion?
[/quote]

There is no way a reasonable man could extrapolate that from my posts on this thread. Have you read my posts?

I’ve said “I don’t know” several times but have added the caveat that you (and EVERYONE ELSE) don’t either.

Also, it’s not about “you or I having the educational background needed to properly evaluate the research conducted by any scientists…” It’s about looking at this with an open mind KNOWING that the distant, unobservable past is a tricky lil bugger to tackle with CERTAINTY regardless of one’s educational credentials.[/quote]

Fair enough Push.

644

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ano, you know good and well that when “evolution” is mentioned where you cited it is spoken in terms of “macro-evolution.” If you didn’t know that you’re dumber than a sack of rocks laying in the back of the short bus.

If you DID know that then well…I reckon your disingenuous streak is showing, isn’t it?[/quote]

Hi, pot.

Many of you YEC didn’t even acknowledge speciation until embarrassingly recently. I’ve posted things proving that in past discussions, so don’t play dumb.

What every single YEC has in mind when discussing subjects outside of their area of expertise and eduction is not something I can simply divine. I am assuming you can speak for them because you have read this book?

So, no, it is NOT disingenuous. What IS disingenuous, though, is your sidestepping the defense of their assertion that thermodynamics is incompatible with evolution. What IS disingenuous, as everyone has noticed, is your ducking and weaving when faced with nearly everything else I’ve written in this thread.

Shucks, I’m just flattered you decided to grace my posts with more than a single sentence that impotently jabs at a cherry-picked comment secondary – if that close – to the main points of my thoughts.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
BTW, “the show of hands” ploy is the ol’ “I believe in polls” over substance philosophy.[/quote]

No, it shows that if you want to present your theory as viable as the mainstream one, the burden of proof is on YOU to defend your case.

You wanted to say dating methods are inaccurate, YOU had to present your evidence to be taken seriously by the people you were laughing at. So far, that hasn’t worked out too well for ya.

You want to say YEC is just as viable a concept as modern evolutionary theory, YOU have to present your evidence to that end.

We can START by discussing how YECs believe evolution doesn’t fit in with thermodynamics. You brought this up in our last debate and conveniently sidestepped my response. How… disingenuous.

State your case, push.

645

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’ve said “I don’t know” several times but have added the caveat that you (and EVERYONE ELSE) don’t either.[/quote]

The problem with this is that you use a lack of absolute, concrete certainty as a springboard to champion a fringe scientific movement and proclaim their theory to be just as scientifically sound as the reigning one because… we just don’t know either way which one is actually true.

You’ve appealed to this mindset in other threads with dismissive comments about evolution being “just a theory” – because if it’s a “theory”, it hasn’t been proven to exist… and if it hasn’t been prove to exist, then it’s not “true”… and if it’s not true, then ALL sides of the debate must be equally valid.

Of course, the only evidence that is offered comes from solely pro-YEC journals and published on sites that explicitly, overtly and shamelessly state that nothing contradicting the literal account of Genesis is considered true. But, that’s only because every single mainstream scientific journal is out to keep the conspiracy alive out of vanity and/or greed. And they DO THIS by purposefully misconducting, misinterpreting and misapplying research over dozens of scientific disciplines on a consistent, global, near-unanimous scale.

Well… global warming as WRONG.

LOL

646

Sigh… Is there someone actually saying you can’t be a theist and also a good scientist? If there is they are dead wrong. However, I would say there is good reason to question the motives of some religious groups w/ respect to science.

There are fundamentalist religious groups that make it their mission to keep good science down. Take for instance the site answersingenesis.org, the leading organization in the creationist movement. They are not only saying evolutionary theory is incorrect, but they are also asserting it is the foundation for immorality in society -divorce, racism, pornography, homosexuality and lawlessness. If you don’t believe me click here: The Evils of Evolution | Answers in Genesis . They don’t care about how scientifically sound evolution is, it doesn’t matter because to them it is the source for society’s ills. I can’t find it right now, but at one point they had an illustration attributing evolution to Hitler.

Some religious groups do not understand the importance of protecting open scientific inquiry or that facts and evidence should never be twisted by politics or ideology. As Obama once said “It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient. Especially when it’s inconvenient.”

So you have to understand WHY some of us get so defensive when people prop up Creationism. We don’t want to slow the advancement of science just because it challenges the cherished religious beliefs of some. If there weren’t lobbyists pushing for the teaching of Creationism in science class no one would get defensive. There is no scientific evidence to support creationism while evolution has been verified by all related scientific fields. There isn’t a macro vs micro debate among scientists, that’s a fiction created by creationists.

We also get sick and tired of people saying things like “Science has spent most of it’s time being wrong and is therefore unreliable!!!” Which is bullshit.

647

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ano, you know good and well that when “evolution” is mentioned where you cited it is spoken in terms of “macro-evolution.”[/quote]

Also, he wrote the “THEORY OF EVOLUTION”. His comments, therefore, are addressing the entire scope of the evolutionary perspective.

Now, either post his entire essay for me to dismantle or quit trying to explain to me what he meant. It’s getting silly and your response isn’t supported (as usual) by his choice of words. Post the essay or don’t bother arguing otherwise.

I’ve been saying this, but you just haven’t been paying attention: you’re gonna have to tryharder than that to get me to even rock back on my heels in this discussion.

648

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]overstand wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]overstand wrote:
If we’re comparing list size, I’ll bet you the list of prominent scientists who would laugh in your face could fill the rest of this thread[/quote]

But…you aren’t a prominent scientist…or any type of scientist last I checked…so where is the attitude coming from?[/quote]

?

Neither is pushharder. I didn’t realize you needed an advanced degree in physics or chemistry in order to have an opinion.

[/quote]

Dude, you are claiming people are going to laugh at his ideas. I’m laughing at YOURS…because you really don’t seem to have come to ANY conclusions on your own nor do you have any expertise to be running after someone else like this.

No, push isn’t a scientist last I checked…but he has provided more “science” than you have and his belief structure is sound whether we all agree with it or not.

Your attempts to make HIM look like the idiot are failing.

But then…you should be used to that.[/quote]

No, his belief structure is not sound.

We can calculate radiometric rates of decay → They are constant → Since they are constant, we can extrapolate backwards → We can calculate the age of the planet

We can calculate radiometric rates of decay → They are constant → They must have changed at one point → The earth is 5700 years old

Please tell me you understand why one line of reasoning is better than the other. You can not LOGICALLY reach the conclusion that the earth is 5700 years old unless you have some sort of agenda.

There is no LOGICAL reason to doubt radiometric dating techniques unless they conflict with your preconceived account of events. There is not a single shred of evidence that has ever suggested that they change. THERE IS NO LOGICAL, SCIENTIFIC REASON TO DOUBT THE VERACITY OF RADIOMETRIC DATING.

^^ Read that again.

That is really the bottom line of this debate. The rest is just circular bullshit.

649

Okay, now that I have some free time we can start discussing a few of these scientists that Push has named. I will start with Dr. Danny Faulkner since I know him personally and have nothing but good things to say about him. Dr. Faulkner is a perfect example of a very smart physicist who happens to also be a creationist. He has done a fair amount of scientific research in the field of Astronomy and has had his research published in reputable scientific journals. He does not do research anymore, not because he was forced to quit due to his beliefs but because he has moved beyond that point in his career. Doing research and getting published is exhausting and eventually every researcher burns out and moves to teaching full time or something else. He has never once compromised his scientific integrity in order to promote his personal beliefs. When his research contradicted his views he went ahead and published it. He has never attempted to manipulate experiments to produce false or misleading data. I even know of two occasions where he personally tore apart faulty and fraudulent research done by his fellow creationists (I will try to find references for these). He writes articles for creationist websites and publications and is openly vocal about his beliefs but still is permitted to teach physics and astronomy at a state university because he has never compromised his integrity and he doesn’t pretend to be an expert in fields he is not.

650

“Evolutionary theory states that the earth and all life began as a gas several billion years ago and through random processes became more complex with time.”

-Vardiman

“…the core ideas did not support the idea that natural selection could account for the origin of life…”

-Standish

“Probably the most baffling problem which evolution faces is the question of the origin of life.”

-Roth

Picked from several essays of your “experts” published in the book. No, I am NOT going to read through each one to dismantle them piece by piece, because based on what I saw from just a cursory skim, it ain’t worth my time.

Look, I was willing to leave this thread alone so you could claim you ran me out and X could make moronic comments about how the thread got SO MUCH BETTER once the people whose position he was idiotically misinterpreting left. Believe me, I wasn’t running from a single thing written.

Now, I typically don’t pat myself on the back for my posts, but mt point is made. Unless you are gonna nut up and give me an argument that makes me break a sweat, I’m not gonna waste my time slapping you around any longer. I have have a molecular genetics exam tomorrow… you know, that class that gives me no insight into the things I write about when this subject crops up.

651

[quote]overstand wrote:
There is no LOGICAL reason to doubt radiometric dating techniques unless they conflict with your preconceived account of events.[/quote]

“If evolution is true, I reasoned, the Bible cannot also be true.”

-Cimbla

“Finally, I am forced to conclude, as reason dictates, that if the Bible is truly the Word of God (as I am convinced that it is), then it must be accurate in every detail, including the account of creation in 6 literal days.”

-Boudreaux

From pushy’s book.

Clearly, there is no agenda or bias in their thought processes.

Signed,
an agnostic theist (it’s true!)

652

[quote]overstand wrote:

No, his belief structure is not sound. [/quote]

Push has stated he believes that our concept of time could be wrong due to the fact that he believes we were created and have a set date. The article that our beloved Jewish Guy posted happened to be way better at explaining what he believes and how the Bible doesn’t contradict an older Earth than anything posted by you.

You’re here for kicks…because you thought you could get some easy jabs in. There won’t be any scientific studies from you…or hell, anything meant to expand anyone’s knowledge base

Like always, you are here to throw tomatoes from the peanut gallery…again.

The thing is…I doubt anyone is looking forward to another overstand post.

653

Several of the scientists you mentioned were/are part of a group called RATE. This group’s main purpose seems to be to disprove radiometric dating. I should point out first that none of the members of RATE have any specialized training in radiometric dating. A few of them are physicists and geologists so they have some basic knowledge of radiometric dating and can perform some dating, but they do not have the knowledge of the field that comes with actual education and do not have an in depth knowledge of radiometric dating. This would not be a problem, except that their research methods are flawed and extremely misleading. I will provide a very brief overview on some of the major flaws in their methodology. If anyone wants a more in depth analysis, I can provide one. For starters, they concentrate their research on two types of dating: Potassium-Argon and Rubidium-Strontium dating. Why did they choose these two? I can’t say for sure, but it probably has to do with the fact that these two methods are fairly inexpensive, but that is not important. The important thing is that they concentrated their research on two specific dating methods and then continued on to draw conclusions about other types of dating methods based on data specific to those two. That alone is enough to prevent their research from being published, but there is more. They used K-Ar dating on a sample that was only a few decades old and came up with a date in the millions of years. They then draw the conclusion that radiometric dating is not accurate. That is true to an extent. K-40 is a long-lived radionuclide which makes it nearly impossible to use on young samples (it is not entirely impossible, but these guys likely don’t have the knowledge of radiometric dating required to do so. Plus, it is just easier to use other methods). Throughout their research, they use dating methods inappropriately in controlled situations that the physicists and geologists of the group would have known from their intro to nuclear physics class would cause erroneous data. A more detailed refutation of their methods and the flaws in those methods can be found at A Critique of ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project along with references.

654

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
OK…so get this…the MOON is moving away from us year by year.

The day used to be 6 hours long…[/quote]

GTFO!!!

Next thing you’re going to type is that the Moon and Earth were likely once part of an aggregated mass…

G.T.F.O.
[/quote]

Major major LOL from me sir. Well done. I seriously almost choked on my coffee reading that with a Robin Williams voice.

Yeah, this serves as a timestamp on where I am catching up with this trainwreck thread. Sadly.

655

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

My point in that old post was that it is quite sad that such people are “killed off” if they open their mouths–because their opinion in no way whatsoever impedes their ability to do groundbreaking research in their fields when they are otherwise capable via grades and experimental design approach. And it is a dominant opinion that anybody who even mentions “ID” must by definition be a kook, or at the very least incapable and unworthy of doing research in a scientific field in a major university. That is not true and it illustrates a large chunk of politics in science. But nobody will open their mouths about it for fear of their careers. And I would not blame them either.

As far as Dr. Matt goes, his field may be slightly different. I do not know.

However push, I agree with Dr. Matt about dating methods. Sorry bud. [/quote]

Physics tends to have many people in it of one faith or another so we tend to be more tolerant of religious views as long as one doesn’t compromise their integrity to further a personal agenda, which doesn’t happen all too often. It is another matter entirely in the biological sciences. Just mentioning creationism is enough to become ostracized. My girlfriend is a biologist (not evolutionary), and is a devout Christian. She will not even tell her colleagues that she is a christian because she does not want her colleagues to start in on her beliefs. I am of the mind that as long as someone does their job well and does not let their beliefs affect their work, it should not matter.
[/quote]

Thank you very much sir. I just got to this post and this is absolutely what I meant. Absolute gold sir, thank you. It is scarily similar to a cult in some ways (don’t you dare start on that softball Push, that wasn’t what I meant buddy :slight_smile: ). As long as you do good, closely reasoned and repeatable science, you shouldn’t be crucified metaphorically and shuttled off to the outskirts. If your science sucks or your become a pseudoscience pet project guy, then you should be gotten rid of on the merits.

I certainly feel her pain.

656

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

…My girlfriend is a biologist (not evolutionary), and is a devout Christian…

[/quote]

The hens on the first two pages would claim this is impossible.
[/quote]

You know, I find it a little curious that the people on this forum with advanced degrees (myself, Professor X, Steely, Aragorn) all seem to agree that God and science can coexist, but the ones who do not, don’t.[/quote]

Hahaha. Agreed again sir. It makes my head hurt when I try to talk to coffeeshop “intellectuals” and such. As usual, the people with the most expertise have the least problems with theism and science.

657

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ranengin wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Believing in God doesn’t mean you stop looking for scientific answers.[/quote]

Agreed, but…

There seems to be a sizable segment of the population that steadfastly reject any scientific answers that don’t jive with their pre-existing religious beliefs. [/quote]

And the same can be said for people who act as if science has everything figured out so far and somehow has disposed of the idea of any guided creation.

The truth is we are really fucking primitive. We just mapped out our own DNA for the first damned time and 200 years from now, those brilliant iPhones all of us are treating like gifts from God will be laughable pieces of garbage in an antique store in some future society that will think every person here shouting how much science has figured out is a moron.[/quote]

LOL and QFT

659

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
Several of the scientists you mentioned were/are part of a group called RATE. This group’s main purpose seems to be to disprove radiometric dating. I should point out first that none of the members of RATE have any specialized training in radiometric dating. A few of them are physicists and geologists so they have some basic knowledge of radiometric dating and can perform some dating, but they do not have the knowledge of the field that comes with actual education and do not have an in depth knowledge of radiometric dating. This would not be a problem, except that their research methods are flawed and extremely misleading. I will provide a very brief overview on some of the major flaws in their methodology. If anyone wants a more in depth analysis, I can provide one. For starters, they concentrate their research on two types of dating: Potassium-Argon and Rubidium-Strontium dating. Why did they choose these two? I can’t say for sure, but it probably has to do with the fact that these two methods are fairly inexpensive, but that is not important. The important thing is that they concentrated their research on two specific dating methods and then continued on to draw conclusions about other types of dating methods based on data specific to those two. That alone is enough to prevent their research from being published, but there is more. They used K-Ar dating on a sample that was only a few decades old and came up with a date in the millions of years. They then draw the conclusion that radiometric dating is not accurate. That is true to an extent. K-40 is a long-lived radionuclide which makes it nearly impossible to use on young samples (it is not entirely impossible, but these guys likely don’t have the knowledge of radiometric dating required to do so. Plus, it is just easier to use other methods). Throughout their research, they use dating methods inappropriately in controlled situations that the physicists and geologists of the group would have known from their intro to nuclear physics class would cause erroneous data. A more detailed refutation of their methods and the flaws in those methods can be found at A Critique of ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project along with references. [/quote]

Interesting, thanks…